Lansky v. Lengerich
699 F. App'x 793
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2008 Lansky was convicted in Colorado of four counts of sexual assault on a child; he was sentenced as a habitual sex offender to concurrent 36-years-to-life terms. The Colorado Court of Appeals (CCA) affirmed on direct appeal in 2010; Lansky did not seek Colorado Supreme Court review.
- Lansky filed a state postconviction relief (PCR) petition in 2013; the state court denied it and Lansky’s attempt to appeal out of time was dismissed by the CCA as untimely. Lansky argued the state court failed to timely notify him of the PCR denial, which he said excused the late appeal.
- Lansky filed a federal habeas § 2254 petition in April 2016 raising ten claims, including that the state court failed to notify him of the PCR denial.
- The district court dismissed one claim as non-cognizable in habeas (challenge to state postconviction process) and dismissed the remaining nine as time-barred under the one-year AEDPA limitations period, concluding Lansky’s conviction became final on September 13, 2010 and his 2013 PCR did not toll the expired limitations period.
- The district court also denied equitable tolling, finding Lansky did not diligently pursue his rights and that the alleged lack of notice did not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing.
- Lansky sought a Certificate of Appealability (COA); the Tenth Circuit denied the COA, holding reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s procedural rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lansky’s habeas claims are time-barred under AEDPA § 2244(d)(1) | Lansky contends his limitations period should be tolled because the state court failed to timely notify him of the PCR denial | The government argues the one-year period expired in 2011 and Lansky’s 2013 PCR was filed after the limitations period, so it did not toll AEDPA time | Held: Claims are time-barred; convictions became final Sept. 13, 2010 and PCR filed in 2013 did not toll expired period |
| Whether Lansky is entitled to equitable tolling of AEDPA limitations | Lansky asserts the lack of notice of PCR denial prevented timely filing and justifies equitable tolling | The government contends Lansky did not diligently pursue his rights and has not shown an extraordinary circumstance preventing timely filing | Held: Equitable tolling denied; Lansky failed to show diligence or extraordinary circumstances |
| Whether a challenge to the state court’s postconviction process is cognizable in federal habeas | Lansky argues the state’s failure to notify him of the PCR denial is a habeas claim | The government argues challenges to state postconviction procedures are not cognizable on federal habeas review of the underlying conviction | Held: Non-cognizable; challenges to state collateral-review procedures cannot be raised in § 2254 (dismissed) |
| Whether a COA should issue for appeal of procedural dismissals | Lansky argues jurists could debate the district court’s timeliness and cognizability rulings | The government argues the district court’s procedural rulings were correct and not debatable | Held: COA denied; reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s procedural rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- Sellers v. Ward, 135 F.3d 1333 (10th Cir.) (state collateral-review challenges not cognizable in habeas)
- Clark v. Oklahoma, 468 F.3d 711 (10th Cir.) (postconviction proceedings initiated after AEDPA limitations period do not toll the limitations period)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (U.S.) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S.) (standards for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- People v. Baker, 104 P.3d 893 (Colo. 2005) (state-law standard on good cause for late appellate filing)
- Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir.) (courts liberally construe pro se pleadings but do not act as advocates)